Traditionally, there have been several different approaches to protect the complete integrity of documents, to protect both against falsification and/or adulteration and distinguish between original and copy. Normally authentication of document refers to origin of document, while complete integrity covers simultaneously aspects of origin (falsifications) adulteration (inclusion, exclusions and alteration of contents) and distinguishing original from copy. Such approaches include, for example, 1) sets of static security features pre-applied in industrial security printers on regular, or special, paper; 2) isolated dynamic features applied in regular paper; and 3) electronic security features protecting documents while in electronic format. Each of these approaches is described in turn.
Initially, with respect to static security features, various techniques for document protection are known, but which, alone or in combination, are not capable of covering the different types of fraud with respect to the protection of documents printed in standard paper. Traditional static security features include a set of technologies that warn against copies, such as through special backgrounds, micro printing, etc. However, such features are applied to paper using special industrial printers, restricting document generation to one or a few locations. This can lead to longer lead time to generate and deliver such documents, which can have negative consequences. Furthermore, such approaches have higher costs, as industrial specialized equipment is required. In addition, these technologies do not automatically indicate removal, alteration or inclusion of information and do not facilitate the identification of the person that may have leaked documents to non authorized persons.
As referred to herein, “Static Protection” shall be understood as the protection applied to paper prior to printing of a document. As such, there is no direct connection between the security information and information included when the document is printed, such as date, universal time, originator, user, contents, etc. This is in contrast “Dynamic Protection” and, as referred to herein, shall be understood as protection applied at the time of printing of text or other information contained in a page of a document and that changes from page to page or document to document. Dynamic protection carries information that changes dynamically in every printing, such as: date and universal time, originator, user, contents, etc.
With respect to dynamic features, traditionally isolated dynamic features may be applied in regular paper. Such dynamic features can be applied dynamically in usual paper. However, such security features are traditionally applied on stand alone basis and protect only one aspect of the range of chances of fraud. For example, each dynamic security feature may be applied to protect against one kind of fraud, but not protects against a set of fraud possibilities. Example: a technology that is visible with special lens in original and that disappears in a copy (portion of text or an image, may include a time/date, originator) covers origin fraud, but not if the content of document has been altered or not. However, traditionally these types of protection are discrete items and there is no integration of these technologies that enable their use simultaneously and at the moment of printing. That is, Each of the technologies developed covers only one aspect of potential fraud.
Finally, with respect to electronic security features protecting documents while in electronic format, such protection is restricted to documents in electronic form. When a document is printed, the electronic security feature no longer remains with the document. For example, a power of attorney stored in the computer of the Notary Public's Office can be protected, but once printed it may be copied and adulterated, without being detected by the electronic security feature of the electronic document where adulteration where performed, maximum information can be that something is different, but never exactly what has been altered.
In many situations, it is desirable to verify that a document for signature, for example, is the same document as previously agreed between two parties. Presently, there is no efficient guarantee that the document to be signed (in paper) is the same document that has been sent to the other party, i.e., that such document was not amended in any way, even a comma. Similar situations are present for documents presented as original, and even those notarized (such as powers of attorney, certificates, etc.), since the authentication provided in the Notary Public's Office includes, at most, the verification of origin, but does not cover the automatic verification of amendments to the text of the document.
Thus, a problem related to current day document security concerns the vulnerability of printed documents, especially those involving several interested parties, with various versions, until the moment of the respective signatures. Additionally, with advances in the technology of copier machines and scanners, the production of copies with excellent quality results in a difficult, if not sometimes impossible, task of distinguishing the original from a copy. This allows assembling of different contents than original one without clear perception of the other party.
Additionally, a further problem is the high cost involved when one (or various) specialized professionals are assigned to carry out personal verifications (through visual reading) of the printed documents, since such verification must be done ‘page by page’ ‘character by character’, comma by comma, with consequences in time, costs and risks arising from human visual checking. Changing a simple comma in any document can change rights and obligations between the parties. Moreover, it is well known that the human visual checking is not permanently sharp and accurate enough for this kind of verification, resulting in relatively frequent errors.
It can be added that there are various security technologies that make it possible to identify, with a high degree of certainty, whether a document is true or false. However, such technologies require an “expert” to make such a determination. In many transactions, time to reach such certainty may provide the defrauder time and opportunity to benefit from the fraud committed. In some cases is possible to indicate that document content has been altered, but not what was original text compared with now visual text, showing exactly where, in both text versions, adulterations occurred.